Goodman Games solicits input

[DaveMage]

Add me to the list of people who think that it's untenable to make an adventure that works with both 4E and earlier versions, with different statblocks.

I don't play 4E, but I look at it this way:

1) if you write for 3E/Pathfinder, your modules compete with Paizo

2) if you write for 4E, your modules compete with WoTC

Paizo's stuff is topnotch, while WoTC's is subpar. So, I think you'll do better staying with 4E. You can basically try to occupy the niche Paizo had in 3E. If you can't make staying with 4E work, you can try the generic module thing, but my sense is that the 4E world assumptions are so different from previous editions that it won't work.

Ken

Sounds good.

 

[Treebore]

I think the design considerations for a good 4e module are different from those of a good 1e or 3.x module. Just converting the stats probably wouldn't cut it, in my opinion. And with an increasing number of modules being released for my preferred system (or one that is highly compatible in its stats and approach to the game), a 4e module with converted stats would be very low on my list of likely purchases.

From my experience I think you and everyone else who says it would translate badly between editions are wrong.

Why? I have used the 4E Punjar modules, all of the, converted to my C&C game.
I have also done the same with modules from every single edition of D&D, and they all "translate" just fine to C&C.

Plus you people need to remember, if your playing 4E your PC's and your game to game rules of movement, etc... are already taken care of by YOU, not the module.

Same deal if your playing 3E.

Same deal for any other RPG your running.

Plus I don't know about the rest of you, but the number of monsters and the amount of treasure given in a module has never been followed by me UNLESS I thought my group could handle the creatures as written and the treasure was to my liking to begin with.

Apparently a lot of you only run modules exactly as written and never change anything.

So if you think having 5 foot squares instead of 10 foot squares, or having too many monsters or too few, or the treasure isn't "just right", not having done perfectly right for you is a "game breaker" then I am rather disappointed, I have always had this image that RPGers were creative and thrived on adaptation and improvisation, apparently I have been wrong all this time.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I do not believe any 3pp has enough status to be that tightly linked to how 4e fares. Most dnd players do not know who goodman games is..

Cool! This calls for a Venn diagram!

Goodman has a few options, here.

1) He can try to increase the size of the group of people buying 4e products (as that circle enlarges, it will encompass more of his product)

2) He can try to expand the group of people who have heard of Goodman Games (as that circle enlarges, it will encompass more of those already buying 4e support material). In addition, this enlarging circle may expand into other rulesets (3e, PF) that do not intersect the large 4e circle.

3) He can keep both groups the same size and focus on intruding his circle into the group of 4e supporters.

That wedge I highlighted in red is Goodman's problem: People who own 4e, have heard of Goodman Games, but aren't buying 4e support material (neither from WotC nor anybody else). I suspect that group is larger than it appears in my diagram.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

From my experience I think you and everyone else who says it would translate badly between editions are wrong…I have also done the same with modules from every single edition of D&D, and they all "translate" just fine to C&C.

Heck, going beyond D&D editions, I think it's possible to take a Tunnels & Trolls module, or a Rolemaster module, or a Runequest module, and "translate" it to the D&D edition of your choice. Depending on the skill of the DM, the amount of work (or on-the-fly changes and improvisations) he's willing to perform, the approach he uses in his game, and the systems involved, that might be viable. But I don't think those are good assumptions for a module line.

I like modules to save me some time and effort. If I have to make many changes to the module (on the fly or not), I think I'm often better off just creating something up myself. (In fact, I think that's often less work, compared to reading/digesting/altering another's work.) I'm not just talking about stats, but also how well the module integrates into my campaign and how well its design and approach matches my preferences.

Frankly, modules are a tough sell, for me, to begin with. And the bigger the gap between my preferences on system/design/style and the module's, the harder the sell. I *can* convert anything; but I'm not willing to pay money for something that I'm essentially going to re-do, anyway.

I have always had this image that RPGers were creative and thrived on adaptation and improvisation…

Well, that's just it. If I'm going to be creative, anyway, why not just do my own thing, instead of re-interpreting a module?

 

[bytor4232]

I would say produce two products, 4E and generic. Then we have have downloadable stats.

However, skilled DMs should be able to convert the monsters themselves, especially if they are playing OD&D or AD&D. I've been doing on the fly conversions for a while now, us old school DMs are used to it.

 

[Jack99]

Cool! This calls for a Venn diagram!

Goodman has a few options, here.

1) He can try to increase the size of the group of people buying 4e products (as that circle enlarges, it will encompass more of his product)

2) He can try to expand the group of people who have heard of Goodman Games (as that circle enlarges, it will encompass more of those already buying 4e support material). In addition, this enlarging circle may expand into other rulesets (3e, PF) that do not intersect the large 4e circle.

3) He can keep both groups the same size and focus on intruding his circle into the group of 4e supporters.

That wedge I highlighted in red is Goodman's problem: People who own 4e, have heard of Goodman Games, but aren't buying 4e support material (neither from WotC nor anybody else). I suspect that group is larger than it appears in my diagram.

You are funny, in the good way. I agree that if indeed GG's problem is the lack of players, or perhaps rather DM's, who know of GG and their products, there is a lot of other things GG can do besides the multiple edition modules. Which is your point I gather? Since that doesn't seem to be on the table, it must be because 4e itself is losing momentum. Either way, I do not see it as clearcut. Now, I have little to do with the industry, but I do know that exposure of the kind that GG would probably need in order to enlarge its circle significantly would probably cost a ton of money. Money that I am guessing they simply do not have.

As a small note to you, Wulf. I am not disputing that 4e could be doing poorly/worse/not-so-good. I do not hope so, but honestly, we probably won't know until WotC tells us (which will never happen) or until 5e is announced. My point is simply that *if* the DCC line is not doing as well as say 4 months ago, where it was doing great, according to Joseph, that's simply not enough to claim that 4e is doing poorly as well.

For all I care, 5e can come along whenever. If its better than 4e, I will happily switch, because the small amounts of money I spend on D&D ($50-$100 per month) is relatively small and insignificant compared to what else I would use the money on. So whether I buy all 4e books or all 5e books is pretty much a wash for me. I just want the best possible system.

 

[Minicol]

Add me to the list of people who think that it's untenable to make an adventure that works with both 4E and earlier versions, with different statblocks.

I don't play 4E, but I look at it this way:

1) if you write for 3E/Pathfinder, your modules compete with Paizo

2) if you write for 4E, your modules compete with WoTC

Paizo's stuff is topnotch, while WoTC's is subpar. So, I think you'll do better staying with 4E. You can basically try to occupy the niche Paizo had in 3E. If you can't make staying with 4E work, you can try the generic module thing, but my sense is that the 4E world assumptions are so different from previous editions that it won't work.

Ken

This.

Also, I bought quite a number of the old DCCs, and the "old school" approach as defined by them is not really my cup of tea at the moment. They'd need to change the writing formula to grab my attention this time around.

+ side : exotic locations
- side : way too much fights, plot too thin.

IMO of course.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

As a small note to you, Wulf. I am not disputing that 4e could be doing poorly/worse/not-so-good. I do not hope so, but honestly, we probably won't know until WotC tells us (which will never happen) or until 5e is announced. My point is simply that *if* the DCC line is not doing as well as say 4 months ago, where it was doing great, according to Joseph, that's simply not enough to claim that 4e is doing poorly as well.

I have not said that 4e is not doing well-- I mean, just look at that Venn diagram! Look at the size of that circle!-- I said that it's not doing well where it counts for Goodman Games: among those folks in the market for support material (and specifically for 3pp support).

It doesn't matter to Goodman Games if 4e continues to sell 10,000 units a month if those purchases don't translate into sales for him. Step one is convincing those purchasers to adopt the "repeat purchase" model and Goodman would be competing with WotC in that effort.

If Paizo's admittedly much smaller fanbase is more willing to buy GG adventures, then he needs to be marketing to them. He doesn't need to convince them to be repeat purchasers. They're already there. It's one less hurdle.

If the 4e fans here at ENworld wanted GG adventures, they have had ample opportunity to pony up. Get out of the red wedge.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

So if you think having 5 foot squares instead of 10 foot squares, or having too many monsters or too few, or the treasure isn't "just right", not having done perfectly right for you is a "game breaker" then I am rather disappointed, I have always had this image that RPGers were creative and thrived on adaptation and improvisation, apparently I have been wrong all this time.

You've been wrong.
Personally I'm with you on this, but I'm thinking that you and I are probably around the same age and can remember a time where the market wasnt slathered in splatbooks and extras and that if we wanted to add something into the game that wasn't there we had to make it ourselves.

I've noticed that a fair amount of newer players & GM's want to do as little work as possible and if the adventure isn't exactly what they want then there is something wrong with the adventure. Whereas I think that people like you and my self aren't beyond changing things in a written adventure to better suit our players without throwing things completely out of whack.

Is it lack of creativity or pure laziness? I'm not sure but sometimes I get taken aback at how much people are unwilling play around with whats in front of them. I mean not to long go I had someone actually tell me that if youre introducing house rules into a game that means the game wasn't well designed and is probably broken. Never mind the idea that different groups can play the same game in completely different ways from one another....

 

[Jack99]

I have not said that 4e is not doing well-- I mean, just look at that Venn diagram! Look at the size of that circle!-- I said that it's not doing well where it counts for Goodman Games: among those folks in the market for support material (and specifically for 3pp support).

It doesn't matter to Goodman Games if 4e continues to sell 10,000 units a month if those purchases don't translate into sales for him. Step one is convincing those purchasers to adopt the "repeat purchase" model and Goodman would be competing with WotC in that effort.

If Paizo's admittedly much smaller fanbase is more willing to buy GG adventures, then he needs to be marketing to them. He doesn't need to convince them to be repeat purchasers. They're already there. It's one less hurdle.

If the 4e fans here at ENworld wanted GG adventures, they have had ample opportunity to pony up. Get out of the red wedge.

It seems I am unable to tell when you are sarcastic and when you aren't. FWIW, I have almost all, if not all GG 4e products, and I am a big fan. My point had little to do with my own personal feelings about their products.